Lawrence v. Texas was a 5-4 decision and that's the one that gave the whole foundation for gay marriage because the court there said "look, here's the new deal: if it's consensual, it's constitutional."

Really?

So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?

Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?

So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we're seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they're calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine. And that's a wild decision.

This court struck down all crimes against nature laws as unconistitunal. It allows two consenting adults to practice anal and oral sex. This pertains to nearly every one since most people do these things but gay men recieved the bulk of the prosecutions.

"So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?" The idea is "consenting adults" not "consenting human beings". Personally I'd hang sexual maturity on whether the person has entered puberty and has been intellectually prepared (being adult + being able to consent), but that is a question of law many would not agree with. Over here the age of consent is 14, in many US States it's 18 and that age is for the populous of the country to decide through elections.
"Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?" Yeah. And vice versa too. It is their lives and they are free to what they want with it.
"So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door [...] And that's a wild decision." It is also called democracy, and in democracy the majority rules. So, erm, shut up and live with it.

So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?

What was that about consent? An 11 year old girl is too young to give consent, dumbass.

Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?

Frankly, if they're all OK with it, I don't have a problem with it. It's not for me, but to each his/her own.

the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine.

Why does anyone have a problem with this? There will always be swinger clubs and plural marriages. It's not my cup of tea but like I said, if they're all OK with it, I don't have a problem. Why should people like David Barton have a problem with it? Keep your nose out of other people's lives.

"So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?"
Why is it that y'all miss the "adult" part of "consenting adults"?

"Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?"
Aside from "my imaginary friend doesn't like it", can you give one good reason why not?

Secondly, for someone who professes to know so much about American history and law you should know that 11 year olds can't give consent legally in this country. The real problem with you is that you do know that, but that kind of statement sounds very convincing to the morons that you are trying to reach who, in their ignorance, would believe that if we allow same sex marriages that it is a very short step to allowing child brides.

David, that's a Slippery Slope, and a really bad one at that.
An 11-year-old can't give consent, and a lot of 95-year-olds are either physically incapable of having sex, or mentally senile.
There's nothing wrong with polyamory, if all the participants are consenting adults.

Lawrence v. Texas was 6-3, not 5-4. And one of the three was Clarence Thomas, who apparently never believes the Constitution gives individuals the right to much of anything.

What a mess of straw men:

Eleven year old girls can't consent under the law.

Marriage is a state-sponsored legal contract. They don't have to allow five guys to marry one girl any more than they have to allow five guys to have one driver's license. Now if five guys want to have sex with one girl and they consent, that's constitutional.

"Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?"

Fine by me. It's really none of my business, but it's going to be one hell of a mess when it comes time to divvy up the estate due to divorce or death.

"So what happened is that decision was a 5-4 decision that has opened the door to what we're seeing now not only with gay marriage but with what they're calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine. And that's a wild decision."

Yeah, yeah. You guys just can't handle the fact that the times they are a changin'.

"Lawrence v. Texas was a 5-4 decision and that's the one that gave the whole foundation for gay marriage because the court there said 'look, here's the new deal: if it's consensual, it's constitutional.'"

Lawrence v. Texas only struck down anti-sodomy laws. It had nothing to do with marriage. But yeah, sex and/or marriage between consenting adults is fine by me, even though the latter is still illegal in most states.

"So if an eleven year-old girl says she wants to have sex with a ninety-five year-old guy and they both consent, that's constitutional?"

It's statutory rape and has nothing to do with Lawrence v. Texas or marriage for that matter.

"Now wait a minute; if five guys want to marry one girl and they consent, that's constitutional?"

This is also not currently legal, but I have no problem with it.

"..with what they're calling polyamorous marriages and open marriages and so many other things because the premise is that if everybody agrees, it's fine. And that's a wild decision."